June 6 Letters: Gun rights, Obamacare

Liberals are off-base

Re: "A civics lesson," May 28.

It is often noted by liberals that in their correct view, the Constitution is a "living document" rather than one defining how our government is constituted for all time, even with amendments. By making it a living document, liberals can decide what the words mean now, particularly as interpreted by liberal judges who are more concerned with their desired social outcome than in the process of arriving at a just conclusion consistent with the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Liberals interpret this to mean that since we no longer have "militias," there simply is no need for the people to be armed. After all we have a National Guard for that purpose.

This is a fallacious argument. As Thomas Jefferson understood and as expressed in his writings, the people have the right to bear arms so that they can rise up, if necessary, to protect themselves from a wrong-acting government that would abridge or eliminate their rights as citizens of this representative Democracy.

Never forget that it is the people who fought for and established this republic, and not some elitist few who profess to know better how we should live.

We do not need a liberal Supreme Court to opinion us out of our basic right to defend ourselves, both personally against those who would seek to harm us and against those who would take away our freedom.

Ronald M. Smith

James City County

In Orwell's "Animal Farm," the seven Commandments of Animalism (the animals' constitution) that were inscribed on a prominent wall were stealthily morphed into irrelevance. For example, "No animal shall kill any other animal," changed one day to, "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."

These changes were slyly inserted by the animal leaders to sanction their progressive adoption of the detested practices of the farmers whom the animals had ousted.

This is no mere cautionary tale of imaginary, unlikely events; it shows how the U. S. Constitution is amended in our time — not by formal amendments but through case rulings by Supreme Court justices. Liberal justices view themselves as masters of a Living Constitution, which entitles them to issue rulings that ignore, alterter and even reverse constitutional provisions with which they disagree.

Donald Trump is certainly not suggesting that Hillary Clinton will seek to abrogate the Second Amendment through the formal process of constitutional amendment. Rather, he foresees the consequence of a Supreme Court packed with liberal justices if Mrs. Clinton becomes president.

It would not be unprecedented for a liberal Supreme Court to rule that an equivocal "without cause" exception should be appended to the Second Amendment's guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The arbiters of valid causes would be, of course, the justices. Goodbye, Second Amendment!

Randolph Scott

Newport News

Residents of our community may find it of importance to be aware of a Medicare Part B proposal to change how chemotherapy is paid for. In an effort to save money, the proposal favors older anti-cancer drugs over newer, often more innovative, ones.

Treatment decisions should be based not on savings but rather on a physician's assessment of the patient's individual case, input from patient and family and a selection of all the best, most effective treatment options available.

The current Medicare payment system is not perfect and improvements are needed to reduce the cost of health care, particularly for financially strapped patients and families. But this new proposal is a step in the wrong direction.

I hope that members of the Virginia congressional delegation, and in particular Congressmen Scott Rigell, J. Randy Forbes and Robert C. "Bobby" Scott will actively help us fight this experiment.

It places too much focus on the cost of care while risking the quality of that care.